> The "something deeply wrong" part about AI, that even most technology enthusiasts evidently do not seem to grasp, is that it is still fundamentally a statistical model — an algorithmic construct — and does not possess any real intelligence or critical thought whatsoever.
I feel like that what a lot of people who say this don't seem to grasp, is that despite this flaw its still often capable of saying more interesting things than a lot of humans. Which says a lot about humans.
Idk something about a mirror maybe and the output reflecting the input?
> I feel like that what a lot of people who say this don't seem to grasp, is that despite this flaw its still often capable of saying more interesting things than a lot of humans.
So does the Google search bar, but I don't ascribe intelligence to it.
The Google search bar is not capable of generating original text though. LLMs definitely are - you can get pretty creative output easily.
String concatenation will generate "original text" by that definition.
Obligatory "yes, I know that's not what an LLM is", purely pointing out the metric.
[dead]
The google search bar is surprisingly smart sometimes. What's your definition of intelligence that completely excludes most of what a computer does?
Happily, I don't need to define "intelligence" here, because it's squarely in "I know it when I see it" territory. It's notoriously hard to define.
I also don't ascribe intelligence to a pocket calculator.
I don't find it's particularly hard to define loosely, but then I don't think of it as a special property of humans other than it tends to be quite high in them. But we are obviously talking about different things and if you're not going to provide a definition then it's not really the basis for a productive conversation.
To address this similarly to my sibling reply, I don't have a definition of intelligence that provides value here.
And your loose definition isn't doing a lot of help either, beyond perhaps noting: that Google search bar _is_ similarly "intelligent" to an LLM? Which says what, a lot about search? A lot about modern LLMs?
Do you ascribe intelligence to a gorilla? How about a goldfish?
Would you ask either of them to review a PR? Or a calculator to eat a banana? Or an LLM to calculate prime factors?
These aren't interesting questions. As much as any definition is in use here, we're not going to get much value talking about "intelligence" this way.
I mean I'm quite proud of some of my search queries in the same way I'm quite proud of some of the LLM output I get. I'm probably just very arrogant and enjoying myself via some LLM indirection.
Am I the only one that sometimes reads back particularly good emails they've written? I feel like its a similar thing :).
> often capable of saying more interesting things than a lot of humans. Which says a lot about humans.
Other humans aren't there to entertain you, the LLM is.